Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2043189, member: 28107&quot;]You are not looking at the proof coin that Robec posted later in one of the threads that is characteristic of coins from this era.&nbsp; Perhaps it was posted on the NGC thread and not the one here.&nbsp; The coin displays raised lines that cover <u><b>all</b></u> of Mr. Lincoln&#039;s bust.&nbsp; I might buy your die scratch argument if the lines didn&#039;t cover all of the devices with a clear pattern (i.e. it was to remove a specific area that contained debris).&nbsp; Second, your argument ignores that the dies were polished more heavily (including the devices) to effect the brilliant finish that was sought.&nbsp;&nbsp; Third, the Mint did not attempt to introduce cameo contrasts on coinage of this era (and the limited pieces that do exist are scarce or outright rare).&nbsp; The devices during this period were NOT sandblasted or roughed to produce a cameo finish (which could produce lines such as those seen in so called &quot;repolished&quot; proofs from the 1950s and in later periods), so nothing associated with those processes could explain the lines produced here.&nbsp; Fourth, the finer details of the design are often removed consistent with over-polishing of the die.&nbsp; <u>So in effect, we have lines consistent with processes that were introduced in order to produce a brilliant mirror finish on the coins</u>.&nbsp; If the lines were introduced in attempts to produce a mirror-like finish (which the practices and evidence suggest that this was the case), then I don&#039;t see how these could logically be called anything other than die polish lines.&nbsp; But don&#039;t take my word for it alone.&nbsp; Per expert numismatist, historian, and author of among other numismatic treatises <u>From Mine to Mint</u>, Roger W. Burdette, the U.S. Mint used the term &quot;polishing&quot; to refer &quot;to [the] deliberate production of mirror-likes surfaces.&quot;&nbsp; (see NGC thread, <i>supra</i>).</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o176/robec1347/2pyc0n6-2.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>This photo belongs to Randy Campbell.&nbsp; I hope he doesn&#039;t mind me borrowing it.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Roger mentions a number of things that have been used historically in die preparation and polishing.&nbsp; Again, I would refer you to the NGC thread and his book.&nbsp; As for the coin posted above, I don&#039;t know what instrument specifically was used to polish the coin above, but it is clear that coins from this era were struck from highly polished dies and the coins show loss of details on the devices consistent with over-polishing on the devices.&nbsp; In light of that, I find the conclusion (especially with the coin pictured and the resulting pattern of lines) inescapable that we are observing evidence of die polishing (i.e. &quot;die polish lines&quot;).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Die polishing has little to do with the relief of the coin, so I am not sure what your point is here.&nbsp; In any event, are you suggesting that there couldn&#039;t exist more than one process for preparing a die?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in